{"id":8176,"date":"2021-03-30T11:04:00","date_gmt":"2021-03-30T09:04:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.maiwald.eu\/maiwald-blog\/europaeisches-patentamt-frist-versaeumt-welche-entschuldigung-wird-akzeptiert\/"},"modified":"2021-10-13T15:37:58","modified_gmt":"2021-10-13T13:37:58","slug":"european-patent-office-so-you-missed-a-deadline-whats-your-excuse","status":"publish","type":"maiwald-blog","link":"https:\/\/www.maiwald.eu\/en\/maiwald-blog\/european-patent-office-so-you-missed-a-deadline-whats-your-excuse\/","title":{"rendered":"European Patent Office: So You Missed a Deadline &#8211; What\u2019s Your Excuse?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>In decision&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.epo.org\/law-practice\/case-law-appeals\/recent\/j200010eu1.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">J 0010\/20<\/a>, a Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had to consider several excuses for missed deadlines:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>&nbsp;1. \u201cI filed the grounds of appeal six weeks late because of COVID-19!\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Board considered whether the appeal was admissible in view of the&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.epo.org\/law-practice\/legal-texts\/official-journal\/2020\/05\/a60.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">European Patent Office\u2019s Notice of 1 May 2020<\/a>, which stated that because of \u201c<strong>the disruptions due to the COVID-19 outbreak<\/strong>\u201d all periods expiring on or after 15 March 2020 were extended to 2 June 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Board did not agree with the analogous application of&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.epo.org\/law-practice\/legal-texts\/html\/epc\/2016\/e\/r134.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Rule 134(2) EPC<\/a>&nbsp;used in this EPO notice, since&nbsp;<strong>Rule 134(2) EPC only refers to the delivery or transmission of mail<\/strong>, and it was questionable whether it can be applied to more general disruptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, the Board applied the&nbsp;<strong>principle of legitimate expectations<\/strong>. Considering the Notice of 1 May 2020 in this light, the grounds of appeal were filed within the time limits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>&nbsp;2. \u201cI submitted a payment with my bank on the day of the deadline, but it arrived at the EPO three days late!\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.epo.org\/law-practice\/legal-texts\/html\/epc\/2016\/e\/articl7.html#7\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Article 7(3) of RFees<\/a>, a late payment can be considered as fulfilled on time&nbsp;<strong>if the bank payment was made in a Contracting State<\/strong>&nbsp;within the correct time period, even if it arrives in the EPO\u2019s account after this date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Appellant submitted that the fee for further processing was paid by a&nbsp;<strong>Brazilian<\/strong>&nbsp;<strong>bank with a subsidiary in London&nbsp;<\/strong>on the day of the deadline. The Board decided that merely having a subsidiary in London does not mean that a Brazilian bank fulfils the requirement of Article 7(3) of RFees, and there was no evidence that the subsidiary was in any way involved in the interaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Therefore, the Board decided that the Appellant missed the deadline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>&nbsp;3. \u201cYou calculated the removal of the cause of non-compliance wrong!\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A request for re-establishment of rights under&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.epo.org\/law-practice\/legal-texts\/html\/epc\/2016\/e\/r136.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Rule 136(1) EPC<\/a>&nbsp;can be filed within two months of the removal of the cause of non-compliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Appellant\u2019s representative was aware of having missed the time limit for further processing, however, he alleged that the removal of the cause of non-compliance was&nbsp;<strong>the date (1 month later) when the Appellant learned about the missed time limit<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Board disagreed and confirmed the standing practice of the EPO as decided in&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.epo.org\/law-practice\/legal-texts\/html\/caselaw\/2019\/e\/clr_iii_e_4_1_1_a.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">J 27\/90<\/a>, \u201c<em>if a professional representative is appointed,&nbsp;<strong>the removal of the cause of non-compliance usually occurs on the date on which the professional representative becomes aware&nbsp;<\/strong>of the fact that a time limit has not been observed<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus, it is important to understand the correct definition of terms that define time-points in order to find the starting date of a deadline.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-8176","maiwald-blog","type-maiwald-blog","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.maiwald.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/maiwald-blog\/8176","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.maiwald.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/maiwald-blog"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.maiwald.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/maiwald-blog"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.maiwald.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/maiwald-blog\/8176\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10621,"href":"https:\/\/www.maiwald.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/maiwald-blog\/8176\/revisions\/10621"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.maiwald.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8176"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}